Offc Action Outgoing

United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)

Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application

NONFINAL OFFICE ACTION

The USPTO must receive applicant’s response to this letter within six months of the issue date below or the application will be abandoned.  Respond using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS).  A link to the appropriate TEAS response form appears at the end of this Office action. 

Issue date:  May 08, 2021

This application was approved for publication on 02/08/2021.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.80.  However, approval of the application has been withdrawn to address the issue(s) below.  See TMEP §706.01.  The trademark examining attorney apologizes for any inconvenience this may cause applicant.

SUMMARY OF ISSUES:

• Trademark Act Section 2(d) Refusal – Likelihood of Confusion
• Amendment to Identification of Goods and/or Services Required

Trademark Act Section 2(d) Refusal – Likelihood of Confusion

Registration of the applied-for mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the mark in U.S. Registration No. 4371671.  Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.  See the attached registration.

The applied for mark is VIVIO for the following goods:

Class 9:

Downloadable computer application software, namely, software for playing music, software for playing games, software for enabling online shopping, software for accessing a travel guide, software for enabling communication, software for editing a photograph and software for image processing and transmission; Tablet computers; Smart glasses; Smart watches; Electric navigational instruments; Global positioning system (GPS) apparatus; Smartphones; Mobile phones; Cell phone covers; Cell phone cases; Protective films adapted for mobile phone screens; Wearable smart phones; Stands adapted for mobile phones; Cabinets for loudspeakers; Wireless speakers; Headphones; Wireless earphones; Earphones for cellular telephones; Wireless headsets for smart phones; Selfie sticks for use with smartphones; USB cables; USB cables for cellphones; Power adapters; Batteries, electric; Battery chargers; Wireless chargers; Battery chargers for mobile phones; Virtual reality glasses; Virtual reality headsets; Artificial intelligent speakers in the nature of wireless audio speakers; touch screens for mobile phones; mobile power banks in the nature of rechargeable batteries; Smartwatch bands; Chipsets for use with wireless communication apparatuses, consumer electronic devices, smart phones, and wearable mobile computers; Integrated circuits, namely, system basis chips and systems on a chip (SOC); Multiprocessor chips

The registered mark is V·I·V·O and design for the following goods:

Class 9:

Ethernet cables; Specialty electrical cables; Desktop monitor stands

Trademark Act Section 2(d) bars registration of an applied-for mark that is so similar to a registered mark that it is likely consumers would be confused, mistaken, or deceived as to the commercial source of the goods and/or services of the parties.  See 15 U.S.C. §1052(d).  Likelihood of confusion is determined on a case-by-case basis by applying the factors set forth in In re E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 1361, 177 USPQ 563, 567 (C.C.P.A. 1973) (called the “du Pont factors”).  In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 866 F.3d 1315, 1322, 123 USPQ2d 1744, 1747 (Fed. Cir. 2017).  Any evidence of record related to those factors need be considered; however, “not all of the DuPont factors are relevant or of similar weight in every case.”  In re Guild Mortg. Co., 912 F.3d 1376, 1379, 129 USPQ2d 1160, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (quoting In re Dixie Rests., Inc., 105 F.3d 1405, 1406, 41 USPQ2d 1531, 1533 (Fed. Cir. 1997)).

Although not all du Pont factors may be relevant, there are generally two key considerations in any likelihood of confusion analysis:  (1) the similarities between the compared marks and (2) the relatedness of the compared goods and/or services.  See In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 866 F.3d at 1322, 123 USPQ2d at 1747 (quoting Herbko Int’l, Inc. v. Kappa Books, Inc., 308 F.3d 1156, 1164-65, 64 USPQ2d 1375, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2002)); Federated Foods, Inc. v. Fort Howard Paper Co.,544 F.2d 1098, 1103, 192 USPQ 24, 29 (C.C.P.A. 1976) (“The fundamental inquiry mandated by [Section] 2(d) goes to the cumulative effect of differences in the essential characteristics of the goods [or services] and differences in the marks.”); TMEP §1207.01. 

Similarity of the Marks

Marks are compared in their entireties for similarities in appearance, sound, connotation, and commercial impression.  Stone Lion Capital Partners, LP v. Lion Capital LLP, 746 F.3d 1317, 1321, 110 USPQ2d 1157, 1160 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (quoting Palm Bay Imps., Inc. v. Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin Maison Fondee En 1772, 396 F.3d 1369, 1371, 73 USPQ2d 1689, 1691 (Fed. Cir. 2005)); TMEP §1207.01(b)-(b)(v).  “Similarity in any one of these elements may be sufficient to find the marks confusingly similar.”  In re Inn at St. John’s, LLC, 126 USPQ2d 1742, 1746 (TTAB 2018) (citing In re Davia, 110 USPQ2d 1810, 1812 (TTAB 2014)), aff’d per curiam, 777 F. App’x 516, 2019 BL 343921 (Fed. Cir. 2019); TMEP §1207.01(b).

When evaluating a composite mark consisting of words and a design, the word portion is normally accorded greater weight because it is likely to make a greater impression upon purchasers, be remembered by them, and be used by them to refer to or request the goods and/or services.  In re Aquitaine Wine USA, LLC, 126 USPQ2d 1181, 1184 (TTAB 2018) (citing In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1362, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908 (Fed. Cir. 2012)); TMEP §1207.01(c)(ii).  Thus, although marks must be compared in their entireties, the word portion is often considered the dominant feature and is accorded greater weight in determining whether marks are confusingly similar, even where the word portion has been disclaimed.  In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d at 1366-67, 101 USPQ2d at 1911 (citing Giant Food, Inc. v. Nation’s Foodservice, Inc., 710 F.2d 1565, 1570-71, 218 USPQ2d 390, 395 (Fed. Cir. 1983)). As such, the wording in the registered mark is dominant as it is what consumers will use to call for the goods. 

Here, the applied for mark VIVO and V·I·V·O are similar in sound, appearance, and meaning and therefore create a similar commercial impression as they are comprised of the same wording.

As such, the marks are confusingly similar.

Relatedness of the Goods

The goods and/or services are compared to determine whether they are similar, commercially related, or travel in the same trade channels.  See Coach Servs., Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC, 668 F.3d 1356, 1369-71, 101 USPQ2d 1713, 1722-23 (Fed. Cir. 2012); Herbko Int’l, Inc. v. Kappa Books, Inc., 308 F.3d 1156, 1165, 64 USPQ2d 1375, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2002); TMEP §§1207.01, 1207.01(a)(vi).

The attached Internet evidence, consisting of screen shots from Best Buy, PC Richards, and Micro Center establishes that the relevant goods and/or services are sold or provided through the same trade channels and used by the same classes of consumers in the same fields of use. Thus, applicant’s and registrant’s goods and/or services are considered related for likelihood of confusion purposes and registration is refused.  See, e.g., In re Davey Prods. Pty Ltd., 92 USPQ2d 1198, 1202-04 (TTAB 2009); In re Toshiba Med. Sys. Corp., 91 USPQ2d 1266, 1268-69, 1271-72 (TTAB 2009).

If applicant responds to the refusal(s), applicant must also respond to the requirement(s) set forth below.

Amendment to Identification of Goods and/or Service Required

Applicant must clarify the following indicated language for reasons stated below. See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §§1402.01, 1402.03.  

The wording “Power adapters” in the identification of goods is a registered mark not owned by applicant; accordingly, applicant must amend the identification to delete this wording and, if not already included in the identification, provide the common commercial or generic name of the goods.  TMEP §1402.09; see 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); Camloc Fastener Corp. v. Grant, 119 USPQ 264, 264 n.1 (TTAB 1958).  See the attached U.S. Registration No(s). 3656544. 

Identifications of goods and/or services should generally be comprised of generic everyday wording for the goods and/or services, and exclude proprietary or potentially-proprietary wording.  See TMEP §§1402.01, 1402.09.  A registered mark indicates origin in one particular party and so may not be used to identify goods or services that originate in a party other than that registrant.  TMEP §1402.09 (citing Camloc Fastener Corp. v. Grant, 119 USPQ at 264 n.1). 

Applicant may replace such wording with the following, if appropriate: 

Applicant may substitute the following wording, if accurate:

Class 9:

 Downloadable computer application software, namely, software for playing music, software for playing games, software for enabling online shopping, software for accessing a travel guide, software for enabling communication, software for editing a photograph and software for image processing and transmission; Tablet computers; Smart glasses; Smart watches; Electric navigational instruments; Global positioning system (GPS) apparatus; Smartphones; Mobile phones; Cell phone covers; Cell phone cases; Protective films adapted for mobile phone screens; Wearable smart phones; Stands adapted for mobile phones; Cabinets for loudspeakers; Wireless speakers; Headphones; Wireless earphones; Earphones for cellular telephones; Wireless headsets for smart phones; Selfie sticks for use with smartphones; USB cables; USB cables for cellphones; Power adapters; Batteries, electric; Battery chargers; Wireless chargers; Battery chargers for mobile phones; Virtual reality glasses; Virtual reality headsets; Artificial intelligent speakers in the nature of wireless audio speakers; touch screens for mobile phones; rechargeable batteries; Smartwatch bands; Chipsets for use with wireless communication apparatuses, consumer electronic devices, smart phones, and wearable mobile computers; Integrated circuits, namely, system basis chips and systems on a chip (SOC); Multiprocessor chips

Applicant may amend the identification to clarify or limit the goods and/or services, but not to broaden or expand the goods and/or services beyond those in the original application or as acceptably amended.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.71(a); TMEP §1402.06.  Generally, any deleted goods and/or services may not later be reinserted.  See TMEP §1402.07(e).

For assistance with identifying and classifying goods and services in trademark applications, please see the USPTO’s online searchable U.S. Acceptable Identification of Goods and Services Manual.  See TMEP §1402.04

Response Guidelines

How to respond.  Click to file a response to this nonfinal Office action.    

Please call or email the assigned trademark examining attorney with questions about this Office action.  Although an examining attorney cannot provide legal advice, the examining attorney can provide additional explanation about the refusal(s) and/or requirement(s) in this Office action.  See TMEP §§705.02, 709.06. 

The USPTO does not accept emails as responses to Office actions; however, emails can be used for informal communications and are included in the application record.  See 37 C.F.R. §§2.62(c), 2.191; TMEP §§304.01-.02, 709.04-.05. 

/Grace Duffin/

Grace Duffin, Esq.

Trademark Examining Attorney

Law Office 120

571-270-7069

Grace.Duffin@uspto.gov

RESPONSE GUIDANCE

• Missing the response deadline to this letter will cause the application to abandon.  A response or notice of appeal must be received by the USPTO before midnight Eastern Time of the last day of the response period.  TEAS and ESTTA maintenance or unforeseen circumstances could affect an applicant’s ability to timely respond.  

• Responses signed by an unauthorized party are not accepted and can cause the application to abandon.  If applicant does not have an attorney, the response must be signed by the individual applicant, all joint applicants, or someone with legal authority to bind a juristic applicant.  If applicant has an attorney, the response must be signed by the attorney.

• If needed, find contact information for the supervisor of the office or unit listed in the signature block.

United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)

USPTO OFFICIAL NOTICE

Office Action (Official Letter) has issued

on May 08, 2021 for

U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88776853

Your trademark application has been reviewed by a trademark examining attorney.  As part of that review, the assigned attorney has issued an official letter that you must respond to by the specified deadline or your application will be abandoned.  Please follow the steps below.

(1)  Read the official letter.

(2)  Direct questions about the contents of the Office action to the assigned attorney below. 

/Grace Duffin/

Grace Duffin, Esq.

Trademark Examining Attorney

Law Office 120

571-270-7069

Grace.Duffin@uspto.gov

Direct questions about navigating USPTO electronic forms, the USPTO website, the application process, the status of your application, and/or whether there are outstanding deadlines or documents related to your file to the Trademark Assistance Center (TAC).

(3)  Respond within 6 months (or earlier, if required in the Office action) from May 08, 2021, using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS).  The response must be received by the USPTO before midnight Eastern Time of the last day of the response period.  See the Office action for more information about how to respond

GENERAL GUIDANCE

·         Check the status of your application periodically in the Trademark Status & Document Retrieval (TSDR) database to avoid missing critical deadlines.

·         Update your correspondence email address, if needed, to ensure you receive important USPTO notices about your application.

·         Beware of misleading notices sent by private companies about your application.  Private companies not associated with the USPTO use public information available in trademark registrations to mail and email trademark-related offers and notices – most of which require fees.  All official USPTO correspondence will only be emailed from the domain “@uspto.gov.”